2023 Z06 Corvette

[ivorya]

Originally Posted by PooDog

Im no Chevy fan (check my signature) but this new LT6 mill is pretty impressive check these figures

Voodoo 5.2l
526hp@7500rpm
580nm@4750rpm
redline 8200rpm (from memory )

Chev LT6 5.5L
670HP@8400rpm
620nm@6300rpm
redline 8600rpm

interestingly theres a motortrend article about this mill that credits it being oversquare as one of its best features....you can see from the figures it doesnt lack for torque just higher up with an eight speed box behind it (thought they might have used the 10 speed) this thing will be a weapon around a track if it handles

sometimes its really hard work being a Ford fan , when i think back to when they designed the Modular series and decided to stick with the tooling and make small bore mills ,took a punt on mills getting smaller (no one thought there would be another big capacity v8 war) then rather than change their mind (realising they needed bigger mills for trucks etc ) they develop complete new engines eg 7.3L which must cost squillions more ?

look at the LS everytime engine labs or someone does a HP comparison LS/Coyote the LS cleans up because it can be stroked to 7 litre the little ford does well but lacks the versatility because of its bore size

I guess someone high up in Ford thinks its more important to save face than go back on a decision ......anyhoo guess the end of the ICE is nigh

As mentioned in an earlier video by Pam Beach Dyno, where her compares the two, the Ford engine is a cost/production engine.
The corvette is pure race designed and built.
A number of people also struggle to believe the top end will last as long as GM has stated and wonder the costs involved in replacement.
Time will tell...

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by ivorya

As mentioned in an earlier video by Pam Beach Dyno, where her compares the two, the Ford engine is a cost/production engine.
The corvette is pure race designed and built.
A number of people also struggle to believe the top end will last as long as GM has stated and wonder the costs involved in replacement.
Time will tell...

Yep there's a lot of new technical frontiers for GM it will be interesting to see if they've got it right first pop.....watching the development clip posted earlier looked very similar to the Voodoo announcements......just a few years later

[stevefreestyle]

Originally Posted by slowsnake

Just as a point of interest, the F1 Race cars between 2006 and 2013 were all oversguare, bore was 2.47 to 1 ratio from memory, then they changed to the poxy sound they make now, yuk, but you get used to it!
The most oversquare engine was a Ducati motor cycle, some ridiculous ratio I think was 1.84 to 1, no ****, forget model.

Yes, generally the shorter the stroke the higher the RPM capacity as there is less piston speed (distance travelled in the bore per stroke) and friction, however this also depends on the breathing efficiency of the heads & intake, AND comes at the cost of compromising Torque.

[slowsnake]

Originally Posted by stevefreestyle

Yes, generally the shorter the stroke the higher the RPM capacity as there is less piston speed (distance travelled in the bore per stroke) and friction, however this also depends on the breathing efficiency of the heads & intake, AND comes at the cost of compromising Torque.

Too right, but I think we going to get pulled up from straying from the original thread being about the latest Vette, and ending up talking about square and oversquare engines!

But my last word will go to British designer Edward Turner, a motorbike engine designer, who in 1928 designed a 4 cylinder engine and called it the Square Four, he tried to sell the idea to manufacturers and I know BSA knocked him back, as did a few others.

But a company by the name of Ariel took him on, hence the Ariel Square 4, so instead of inline, he put the cylinders in a square configuration, he went on to design the fabulous Triumph Speed Twin engine.

Stopped manufacture in 1959, but in 1971 Austin built a car which used the Ariel Square Four engine in the Austin Healey 100/4 and lasted until 1977.

Just a little bit of trivia!

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by PooDog

Im no Chevy fan (check my signature) but this new LT6 mill is pretty impressive check these figures

Voodoo 5.2l
526hp@7500rpm
580nm@4750rpm
redline 8200rpm (from memory )

Chev LT6 5.5L
670HP@8400rpm
620nm@6300rpm
redline 8600rpm

interestingly theres a motortrend article about this mill that credits it being oversquare as one of its best features....you can see from the figures it doesnt lack for torque just higher up with an eight speed box behind it (thought they might have used the 10 speed) this thing will be a weapon around a track if it handles

sometimes its really hard work being a Ford fan , when i think back to when they designed the Modular series and decided to stick with the tooling and make small bore mills ,took a punt on mills getting smaller (no one thought there would be another big capacity v8 war) then rather than change their mind (realising they needed bigger mills for trucks etc ) they develop complete new engines eg 7.3L which must cost squillions more ?

look at the LS everytime engine labs or someone does a HP comparison LS/Coyote the LS cleans up because it can be stroked to 7 litre the little ford does well but lacks the versatility because of its bore size

I guess someone high up in Ford thinks its more important to save face than go back on a decision ......anyhoo guess the end of the ICE is nigh

And who makes the most powerful engine out of the 2?

Yes that's right, the 760 hp GT500 engine. GM's supercharged V8 only made 668 in it's highest rated form. That's nearly 100hp extra. From an engine 1 litre smaller.

All kind of irrelevant now though, as you mentioned.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

And who makes the most powerful engine out of the 2?

Yes that's right, the 760 hp GT500 engine. GM's supercharged V8 only made 668 in it's highest rated form. That's nearly 100hp extra. From an engine 1 litre smaller.

All kind of irrelevant now though, as you mentioned.

Was actually meant as a discussion not a pis$ring contest ....I find it quite amusing how sensitive people are I'm a ford fan not a cheer leader

The point I was making LS/ Coyote comparison was when they get a motor from the wreckers and have a set amount to spend on each and see which one makes the most power ....the coyote comes up short because of its inability to be stroked to 7 litres ........back to the square/oversquare thing got it ? ....not who makes the most powerful factory motor ?

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by PooDog

Was actually meant as a discussion not a pis$ring contest ....I find it quite amusing how sensitive people are I'm a ford fan not a cheer leader

The point I was making LS/ Coyote comparison was when they get a motor from the wreckers and have a set amount to spend on each and see which one makes the most power ....the coyote comes up short because of its inability to be stroked to 7 litres ........back to the square/oversquare thing got it ? ....not who makes the most powerful factory motor ?

But you were saying how great the LS is, but in their most potent forms from the factory the Coyote outpowers it significantly.

Yes it has a cube advantage, but with boost the Coyote has the advantage with it's huge flowing heads.

[slowsnake]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

But you were saying how great the LS is, but in their most potent forms from the factory the Coyote outpowers it significantly.

Yes it has a cube advantage, but with boost the Coyote has the advantage with it's huge flowing heads.

There is no substitute for Cubic Inches

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

But you were saying how great the LS is, but in their most potent forms from the factory the Coyote outpowers it significantly.

Yes it has a cube advantage, but with boost the Coyote has the advantage with it's huge flowing heads.

I'm not knocking the coyote ....up to about 6-6.5 litres the coyote is pretty impressive all I'm saying is as Billy's stated there's no replacement for displacement no 5l is going to compare against 7l ....with the small bore size it's what limits the coyote it's just physics ....ford engineered its limtations

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by slowsnake

There is no substitute for Cubic Inches

Yes there is. Boost

[kypez]

Originally Posted by PooDog

sometimes its really hard work being a Ford fan , when i think back to when they designed the Modular series and decided to stick with the tooling and make small bore mills ,took a punt on mills getting smaller (no one thought there would be another big capacity v8 war) then rather than change their mind (realising they needed bigger mills for trucks etc ) they develop complete new engines eg 7.3L which must cost squillions more ?

You sure about that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiih0XjcRFw

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by kypez

You sure about that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiih0XjcRFw

Yes that's very impressive certainly made me feel proud to own 1 ....but you fellas cant see the wood for the trees 5l v 7l with the same $ spent to add boost 5l wont cut it
That's all I'm saying ford pidgeon holed the coyote I'm sure if they used fords 7.3l crate engine it would be a different story

Check out engine labs coyote / Ls shoot out .....I'm sure you have

[kypez]

Originally Posted by PooDog

Yes that's very impressive certainly made me feel proud to own 1 ....but you fellas cant see the wood for the trees 5l v 7l with the same $ spent to add boost 5l wont cut it
That's all I'm saying ford pidgeon holed the coyote I'm sure if they used fords 7.3l crate engine it would be a different story

Check out engine labs coyote / Ls shoot out .....I'm sure you have

I get that but I prefer the characteristics of the Coyote over a LS. When you start getting into the higher RPMs, you have to decide if you want low rev range driveability or high rev range else you end up with valve float. With the DOHC, you don't have to make those kinds of trade offs as much.

Unlike the 5.4 Modulars, piston velocity isn't a big issue with the Coyote.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by PooDog

I'll bet it screams ......see Ford thats how you do it ....oversquare bore change your fuc#ing tooling, we could have had so much more versatility with our vee eights

I get that , I prefer the coyote it's a good compromise being square but my issue is with ford In limiting its versatility by sticking with the small bore .as in my original post

Imagine how easy it would have been to make a GTHO forget about the $ restriction and chassis imagine a 6l or 7l coyote it would be mighty impressive or in a mustang like the old days

You missed a trick ford

[stevefreestyle]

Originally Posted by slowsnake

There is no substitute for Cubic Inches

Really ? The latest 2017 VFII SSV 6.2L made 303 KW

the 2016 FM 5.0L Mustang made 306 KW

the 2018 FN 5.0L Mustang GT made 339 KW (actually 315 RwKw on 95Ron = 371Kw assuming a conservative 15% driveline loss)

Its about intelligent engineering efficiency (DOHC, 4 Valve. Coil on Plug, VVT etc) not just crude push-rod 2 valve capacity.

https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/201...g-dyno-testing

[burnz]

Originally Posted by kypez

I get that but I prefer the characteristics of the Coyote over a LS. When you start getting into the higher RPMs, you have to decide if you want low rev range driveability or high rev range else you end up with valve float. With the DOHC, you don't have to make those kinds of trade offs as much.

Unlike the 5.4 Modulars, piston velocity isn't a big issue with the Coyote.

ls engine don't really suffer from valve float, the cam isn't like the bumpsticks of old.
very smooth/gradual lift..

[kypez]

Originally Posted by burnz

ls engine don't really suffer from valve float, the cam isn't like the bumpsticks of old.

very smooth/gradual lift..

image

Not stock. I was talking about modifications and having to pick low-mid or high. Hard to get a push rod doing both. Easier to do with DOHCs.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by PooDog

I get that , I prefer the coyote it's a good compromise being square but my issue is with ford In limiting its versatility by sticking with the small bore .as in my original post

Imagine how easy it would have been to make a GTHO forget about the $ restriction and chassis imagine a 6l or 7l coyote it would be mighty impressive or in a mustang like the old days

You missed a trick ford

I get what you are saying, and I always wondered why Ford went from a 101.6 bore on the Windsor to a 90.2 bore on the original modular's. The idea of the modular engine family was that it could be scaled up or down depending on application. And in some ways they succeeded, except at the larger end of the scale. The 5.4 with it's 105.8 stroke was awkwardly long. Ford then went back to an OHV V8 for larger trucks.

When you look back to the Windsor, it had the ability to range from a 88.9 bore up to a 101.6, stroke from 72.9 to 88.9, making it more versatile.


Having said that, we are not comparing apples with apples in regards to the way Ford and GM go about making power in their V8's. GM use capacity to overcome the inherent limitation of the OHV design. Ford use freer flowing DOHC heads, and in some cases, forced induction to make power. I don't think you could argue about the effectiveness of either approach these days.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

When you look back to the Windsor, it had the ability to range from a 88.9 bore up to a 101.6, stroke from 72.9 to 88.9, making it more versatile.

For an motor with a shorter stroke, it really didn't like to rev especially in the AU.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by kypez

For an motor with a shorter stroke, it really didn't like to rev especially in the AU.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Because they took approx 100lb of meat out of the main bearing bulk heads compared to the pre 70.s Mexican block's they were designed as a lightweight block and at factory 225hp were absolutely fine but really high revs or boost added everything' starts moving around they're an awesome little block just have limitations.....if you look at the motorsport block they use in the super cars you can see the true potential ford always seam to have a design flaw .....I guess that's what makes them so special

[burnz]

Originally Posted by kypez

Not stock. I was talking about modifications and having to pick low-mid or high. Hard to get a push rod doing both. Easier to do with DOHCs.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

that is a modded cam, the lift is the same 0.551 just duration and Lobe Separation Angle 117~124 degree.

[Bossxr8]

Windsors didn't rev that hard in stock form because they had such ****y size heads on them. They are atrocious.

Get a good set of alloy heads and a decent cam and it's a whole new ball game. Mine rips between 3000-6500. It's only the stock block holding it back. I'd take it to 7k with a bigger cam if I wasn't concerned about splitting the block.

One day i'll go a dart block and pull the string.

[MethodX]

Originally Posted by stevefreestyle

Really ? The latest 2017 VFII SSV 6.2L made 303 KW

the 2016 FM 5.0L Mustang made 306 KW

the 2018 FN 5.0L Mustang GT made 339 KW (actually 315 RwKw on 95Ron = 371Kw assuming a conservative 15% driveline loss)

Its about intelligent engineering efficiency (DOHC, 4 Valve. Coil on Plug, VVT etc) not just crude push-rod 2 valve capacity.

https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/201...g-dyno-testing

Not this crap again.
A ford fan knocking pushrod engines when all their V8 fame has been based on V8 pushrod motors..... weord.

[slowsnake]

Originally Posted by stevefreestyle

Really ? The latest 2017 VFII SSV 6.2L made 303 KW

the 2016 FM 5.0L Mustang made 306 KW

the 2018 FN 5.0L Mustang GT made 339 KW (actually 315 RwKw on 95Ron = 371Kw assuming a conservative 15% driveline loss)

Its about intelligent engineering efficiency (DOHC, 4 Valve. Coil on Plug, VVT etc) not just crude push-rod 2 valve capacity.

https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/201...g-dyno-testing

It's an aphorism

[slowsnake]

Well was a good thread that's turned to sh.t, always happens, it's happened before and I ain't getting caught up in it again, too many complicated " experts "........

[XRtowcar]

Love the new Corvette and can see the heritage of the model shine through. With the new quad cam engine, it will take the car to another level.
Now let’s get USA pricing in Aus.

[stevefreestyle]

Originally Posted by MethodX

Not this crap again.
A ford fan knocking pushrod engines when all their V8 fame has been based on V8 pushrod motors..... weord.

Firstly I never write "crap" when making a statement of fact, as you so eloquently put it, now or ever!

Contrary to your absurd and ignorant agenda, and your facile infantile abuse, what I wrote was unequivocally 100% correct and factual.

An intelligent person would simply correct any errors of Fact, which you are obviously incapable of doing.

For your benefit, I could alert you to another FACT that the 6.2L Commondoor is 24% larger than the 5.0 Mustang, which even with a conservative rating of 339Kw is 36Kw or 11.9% more powerful than the massive 6.2L, despite being 1.2L smaller.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by 383hq

Never fear, if you're in the market in the near term, you'll definately get aftermarket support for boost (perhaps just the generic C8 tho), but if you're prepared to wait and play to GM's timelines, they'll likely release a boosted Vette, Perhaps it'll be called a ZR1, or a Zora or..... in a few years time.

its a very successful strategy played by a few car makers recently - Porsche, AMG etc. Punters prefer the GT3 to the Porsche Turbo for this type of offering, which may be why they've gone down "that Euro path" However emissions laws changed driving the focus on boosted ICE for many. GM do admit they had reached their limits with the Front engine Rear drive strategy on this platform.

standard C8 rrp is circa $67k usd stateside (2LT) but circa $110k usd landed in Oz

I need to buy a house instead of a Corvette I think

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

I get what you are saying, and I always wondered why Ford went from a 101.6 bore on the Windsor to a 90.2 bore on the original modular's.

The shorter engine architecture was required for FWD applications, the RWD 4.6, 5.4 and 6.8 were add ons but ended up being the main game

The idea of the modular engine family was that it could be scaled up or down depending on application.

That’s a common misunderstanding, Modular actually applies to the production layout and it’s ability to switch between producing 5.4 V8 and 6.8 V10 in a matter of hours

4.6 DOHC enabled development of 5.0 Cammer crate engine before development of the 5.0 Coyote, a low cost economic development that cured many of MOD’s problems but maybe created a few new ones that took time to fix. Cammer was used as starting point for Voodoo 5.2, it’s flat plane crank required some block stiffening though.

And in some ways they succeeded, except at the larger end of the scale. The 5.4 with it's 105.8 stroke was awkwardly long. Ford then went back to an OHV V8 for larger trucks.

Early mods had bearing issues in extreme conditions but they got there with changes including better oil pumps.

V10 development went from being an easy 90 degree odd fire engine to a crack prone drama requiring even fire, splayed crank journals and a balancer shaft that sat on top of the left head which meant no cam phasers.
A friggin nightmare that worked out to be a great engine that was brought back from the dead to carry F650 and F750 gasoline sales before the 7.3.

6.2 Boss arrived with excitement that was short lived when F150 buyer support switched to the 3.5 Ecoboost V6, relegating the 6.2 to Super Duty but failed the Medium Duty test cycle. Execs pushed for Boss to be a pushrod engine but engineers got their way with SOHC. Had Ford built it as a 5.8 & 7.0 pushrod for Super Duty and Medium Duty, a lot of mistakes would have been cured years ago.

When you look back to the Windsor, it had the ability to range from a 88.9 bore up to a 101.6, stroke from 72.9 to 88.9, making it more versatile.

If only Ford ignored the desire for a FWD V8, the small block Windsor could have evolved into something special and avoided a lot of unnecessary development steps caused by the Mods.

Having said that, we are not comparing apples with apples in regards to the way Ford and GM go about making power in their V8's. GM use capacity to overcome the inherent limitation of the OHV design. Ford use freer flowing DOHC heads, and in some cases, forced induction to make power. I don't think you could argue about the effectiveness of either approach these days.

GM also dabbled in 5.7 DOHC and the Cadillac DOHC 4.6 V8 Northstar but really, they lost interest because both were novelty/niche products.

Which brings me to the 5.5, good luck GM, people will certainly buy it, I think the moment has passed for many but honestly people buying it won’t give a crap what non buyers think.

[PooDog]

Yep ....if only ,you think they might have learnt from the success of the cammer but I spose at the time with the price of fuel and everyone going smaller motors and more being boosted it made sense ....but with all the tech introduced variable cam timing , direct injection etc they should have adapted to compete with the others with an over square more flexible motor .....seams really odd they didnt normally the bean counters latch onto the cost savings rather than design complete new motors like they did .....be interesting to know the politics behind it